Because at that point in time he was the better keeper. Numerous players get bans, but generally if they are th3 strongest in that position, will reclaim their place when th3 ban is over. If something else went on behind the scenes fair enough, but that was never confirmed, it was just rumours about his attitude. Vigoroux suddenly went from being 1st choice keeper to third behind Will Henry, which was nothing short of ridiculous.
Do you mean before or after his ban?
I’m with you.
The timing went something like this:
26 Sept - Vigs plays vs Coventry, and is sent off post-match. We’ll never know exactly what was said or done, but if he lost his rag in the tunnel, which is presumably the case, Flitcroft must have been aware of it at the time.
30 Sept - Vigs plays vs Cambridge and keeps a clean sheet.
W/C 2 Oct - Vigs is suspended and Flitcroft mouths off about how appalling his behaviour was, how Flitcroft was brought up better and would never stoop to such levels, blah blah.
If Flitcroft was willing to be so quick to take the moral high ground and publicly slag him off, then he simply shouldn’t have picked him versus Cambridge in the meantime. Once he’d picked him in that game, he just needed to put up and shut up.
Part of the problem was we’d hit fairly good form at the time, and whenever we do that Flitcroft relaxes and starts acting like a prick. We saw something similar in late November, when firstly he clearly viewed the Grimsby game as an inconvenience (only took half a bench, full of defenders... told the Adver we should never be going up there on a Tuesday night and he’d rather be at home watching Midsomer Murders), and then straight afterwards got all Total Football with his selections, doing the stupid thing with Taylor and Iandolo which I don’t think I’ve heard a single fan agree with.